I finished reading Hunters of Dune, Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson's attempt to wrap up Frank Herbert's Dune series. The elder Herbert had the bad manners to die before completing the series, leaving his fans with a cliff-hanger of monstrous proportions. His son and Mr. Anderson have picked up the threads where he left off.
The first thing you will note as you read Hunters of Dune is that Brian and Kevin are not the writers Frank was. For one thing, their style is completely different, which is jarring when reading what is, essentially, the last chapter in the Dune saga. However, this is forgivable and is better than the alternative, which would be for them to attempt to imitate Frank's style and fail at it.
Overall I found this book rather tedious to read. Where the original Dune books contained many subtleties, leaving the reader to piece together the significance of certain events, Hunters possesses no subtlety and spells out details for you, sometimes more than once. This is a complete pendulum-swing away from the original works and it detracts from the new book.
The plot of the new story is not bad, but I feel a little ripped-off that there's still another book to come. Not much seems to happen in this book, and when it does happen there are few surprises. The characters sometimes seem to be playing their parts like train-cars on a rail: ok, this is the part where I subdue the resistance, this is the part where I gather my forces, this is the part where I conquer my last enemy, etc. There don't seem to be any real challenges for the heroes despite the real Enemy's seeming omnipotence.
And the identity of the real Enemy is a let-down to me as well. I won't give it away but I feel that this book exists to legitimize the other Dune books written by Brian and Kevin, rather than to wrap up Frank's epic. I'm not convinced that the Enemy was originally conceived to be who B&K have said it is. I have a sneaking suspicion that Frank's original plot has been altered in this regard.
As for my recommendation: only read this book if, like me, you are a sucker for finding out what happens. I've dutifully plodded through the last few Terry Goodkind books because I hate leaving the story hanging, and this book is a lot like those: I am reading it because I have to know how it ends. I will buy the next instalment, Sandworms of Dune, but only when it comes out in paperback.
Soap
Dove is showing an ad these days that says "Soap can do to your skin what it does to itself." and shows a bar of soap all dried and cracked. 
What annoys me about this is that soap doesn't do this to itself; it's the water that does this to the soap. A bar of soap will remain pristine for months, but once soaked in water a few times, then left to dry, it will crack. Guess what? Your wooden cutting-board in the kitchen has the same problem. I guess you should use a Dove bar to cut your food too. Or maybe you're not supposed to use water on your skin? This ad is just dumb.
What annoys me about this is that soap doesn't do this to itself; it's the water that does this to the soap. A bar of soap will remain pristine for months, but once soaked in water a few times, then left to dry, it will crack. Guess what? Your wooden cutting-board in the kitchen has the same problem. I guess you should use a Dove bar to cut your food too. Or maybe you're not supposed to use water on your skin? This ad is just dumb.
Pantless judge continues in folly
U.S. Judge Roy Pearson sued a dry-cleaner because they allegedly lost his pants and he wasn't satisfied with the service. He lost, but is now appealing. The most entertaining thing in this whole story is how Mr. Pearson determined the damages:
Clearly he forgot to includeClaiming that the shop's "satisfaction guaranteed" sign misled customers who, like him, were dissatisfied with their experience, Pearson sought $1,500 for every day that Custom Cleaners displayed the sign over a four-year period, multiplied by the three members of the Chung family, who owned the business.
He also sought $15,000 to rent a car to take his clothes to another cleaner for 10 years.
- Medical bills for anxiety medication as a consequence of the misplaced pants
- $564,000 to buy a house closer to the new cleaners
- $35,000 to renovate the kitchen in the new house
- $50 for a new DVD player, so he can watch movies, because he can't work, because he has no pants
Free stuff
I like getting free stuff. Today I went to buy some tea, having used up my stash a few days ago. The tea on the shelf had a promotion: get a free movie pass when you buy this tea. I thought, great! I like free stuff. Then I saw that the promotion had expired (in April!), but I needed the tea anyway.
Luckily for me the tea scanned in at the wrong price, so I got it for free anyway! Take that, expired movie coupon! And as an added bonus, inside the box was a sampler for ice-tea mix. More free stuff! This day can't get any better.
Luckily for me the tea scanned in at the wrong price, so I got it for free anyway! Take that, expired movie coupon! And as an added bonus, inside the box was a sampler for ice-tea mix. More free stuff! This day can't get any better.
Movie industry proves they're all assholes
I don't put profanity into writing lightly but the movie industry has proven that they are completely out of touch with reality once again. A 19 year-old woman has been arrested and charged with movie piracy after filming a 20 second clip of "Transformers" so she could show it to her younger brother, because she thought seeing the clip would make him want to see the movie. That's when the theatre manager saw her, called the police, and had her charged with recording a movie in the theatre.
You read that correctly: a fan of a movie recorded a tiny clip to promote the movie (which is normally permissible under fair-use laws), and is now facing a year of prison and possible fines, along with a lifetime ban from that particular theatre. This situation couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, unless of course she's actually convicted.
The most arrogant comment in the article is the one from Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel for the Washington-based National Association of Theatre Owners, who says there has to be a "zero-tolerance policy at the theatre level.... We cannot educate theatre managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theatre managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." Obviously either the theatre managers or the National Association of Theatre Owners is low on brain-cells. I'll spell it out for them: copying an entire movie = bad. Taping a 20 second clip = not copyright infringement. It's not rocket science.
I urge anyone in Washington to contact the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 theatre and tell the manager that you will not visit this theatre unless he drops the charges and apologizes to his customer.
You read that correctly: a fan of a movie recorded a tiny clip to promote the movie (which is normally permissible under fair-use laws), and is now facing a year of prison and possible fines, along with a lifetime ban from that particular theatre. This situation couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, unless of course she's actually convicted.
The most arrogant comment in the article is the one from Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel for the Washington-based National Association of Theatre Owners, who says there has to be a "zero-tolerance policy at the theatre level.... We cannot educate theatre managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theatre managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." Obviously either the theatre managers or the National Association of Theatre Owners is low on brain-cells. I'll spell it out for them: copying an entire movie = bad. Taping a 20 second clip = not copyright infringement. It's not rocket science.
I urge anyone in Washington to contact the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 theatre and tell the manager that you will not visit this theatre unless he drops the charges and apologizes to his customer.
Canadian Goverment Abuses its power (again)
The Canadian Government is once again abusing its access to the RCMP to prevent the press from doing their job. The RCMP have been ordered to keep the media away from MPs who are in a hotel for a Conservative Party meeting. It's clearly not a security issue because only the media is excluded; other tourists and guests of the hotel are free to go wherever they want. But the press is forced to wait for officially approved handouts from the government. I can understand the government wanting to present a unified front to the press, but the MPs are highly paid public figures and they should be allowed to talk to the press when they want to, and I'm pretty sure they know how to say "no comment." A free press is critical in keeping the government in check, as was demonstrated by our neighbours to the south in the 70's. Mr. Harper, your iron-fisted, democracy-stifling approach is unacceptable! I can't wait for the next election.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I just watched Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Spoilers for book/movie 5 follow
To recap the plot, the Ministry of Magic is trying to suppress any news that Voldemort is back, they are interfering with Hogwarts in the form of Dolores Umbridge, the new teacher of defence against the dark arts, and Voldemort is trying to do something nefarious yet clandestine.
This fifth instalment in the Harry Potter movie series was a faithful adaptation of the book but it failed to convey the emotions which form the basis of the fifth book's themes. The fifth book is probably the most frustrating book because Harry is an angry teenager, who feels that the adults are still treating him like a child, he doesn't know how to deal with girls, and also Dolores Umbridge is making Hogwarts living hell for the students. Of these themes, only Dolores Umbridge is properly portrayed by the movie; the other themes merely get their token scenes to placate the readers. For example, a significant portion of this book deals with Harry's relationship with girls, Cho Chang specifically. In the movie this is represented by a total of 4 scenes. More importantly, not enough time was spent dealing with Harry's relationship to Dumbledore and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix. Throughout the book Harry is constantly sidelined while the Order tells him to stay out of trouble, etc, and Dumbledore is absent or ignoring Harry. This isolation has significant consequences for Harry, but the movie doesn't explain this to the same extent as the book does. It's only because I read the book that I realized that Dumbledore was more absent than normal. As with Cho Chang, the Dumbledore storyline is shown with a scant handful of scenes that do not do justice to the story.
Granted: this book is one of the longest yet and thus is more challenging to filmmakers. Unlike the Goblet of Fire (which, I might add, also made a rushed and confusing movie) there is hardly any action, thus there is lots of dialogue and exposition that needs to be crammed into a few hours. The movie thus crops every sub-plot until it's recognizable only to those who've read the story. Anyone who hasn't seen the other movies or read the books won't know why that red-headed girl is following Harry around at the end (it's Ginny Weasley), nor who the man with the long white hair is that leads the Death Eaters (it's Lucius Malfoy). Now, these details aren't critical, but basically if you don't know the story already you'll be left to dangle along, unsure about what's happening and bored by the lack of excitement.
Spoilers for book/movie 5 follow
To recap the plot, the Ministry of Magic is trying to suppress any news that Voldemort is back, they are interfering with Hogwarts in the form of Dolores Umbridge, the new teacher of defence against the dark arts, and Voldemort is trying to do something nefarious yet clandestine.
This fifth instalment in the Harry Potter movie series was a faithful adaptation of the book but it failed to convey the emotions which form the basis of the fifth book's themes. The fifth book is probably the most frustrating book because Harry is an angry teenager, who feels that the adults are still treating him like a child, he doesn't know how to deal with girls, and also Dolores Umbridge is making Hogwarts living hell for the students. Of these themes, only Dolores Umbridge is properly portrayed by the movie; the other themes merely get their token scenes to placate the readers. For example, a significant portion of this book deals with Harry's relationship with girls, Cho Chang specifically. In the movie this is represented by a total of 4 scenes. More importantly, not enough time was spent dealing with Harry's relationship to Dumbledore and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix. Throughout the book Harry is constantly sidelined while the Order tells him to stay out of trouble, etc, and Dumbledore is absent or ignoring Harry. This isolation has significant consequences for Harry, but the movie doesn't explain this to the same extent as the book does. It's only because I read the book that I realized that Dumbledore was more absent than normal. As with Cho Chang, the Dumbledore storyline is shown with a scant handful of scenes that do not do justice to the story.
Granted: this book is one of the longest yet and thus is more challenging to filmmakers. Unlike the Goblet of Fire (which, I might add, also made a rushed and confusing movie) there is hardly any action, thus there is lots of dialogue and exposition that needs to be crammed into a few hours. The movie thus crops every sub-plot until it's recognizable only to those who've read the story. Anyone who hasn't seen the other movies or read the books won't know why that red-headed girl is following Harry around at the end (it's Ginny Weasley), nor who the man with the long white hair is that leads the Death Eaters (it's Lucius Malfoy). Now, these details aren't critical, but basically if you don't know the story already you'll be left to dangle along, unsure about what's happening and bored by the lack of excitement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)